Guwahati Court January 2002 Judgments
State of Tripura Vs. Arab Ali
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-31-2002
B.B. Deb, J. 1. The State and officials defendants assailed the order dated 20.2.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division)Dharmanagar North Tripura in Misc. 17 of 1396 in this Civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC .2. The Civil Judge, (Senior Division) being the trial Court declined to condone the delay sought for by the State defendant in filing the restoration petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC against the exparte decree passed on 29.3.1996 in Money Suit No. 8 of 1995 filed by one Arab Ali in Misc. 17 of 1996, as a result the restoration petition stood rejected. Against which the State Defendant preferred the Misc. appeal No. 17 of 1996 purportedly under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC before the learned Additional District Judge, Dharmanagar. The learned Additional District Judge not only entertained the appeal but after hearing allowed the appeal restored the suit. Against which the plaintiff preferred connected Civil Revision No. 42 of 1992 and having found th...
Tag this Judgment!Pranab Kumar Saha Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
B.B. Deb, J. 1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1996 (decree drawn up on 26.11.1996) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division. West Tripura, Agartala in T. S. No. 59/93 whereby the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. 2. I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. K. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. In short, the appellant's (hereinafter called 'the plaintiff) case is the he being a registered carrying contractor entered into an agreement with the defendant-respondent Food Corporation of India (FCI) (hereinafter called 'the defendant') through its Sr. Regional Manager, Shillong on 27.9.1992 for carrying foodgrains from Kumarghat Railway Head to FCI Depot at Agartala for two years. Pursuant to work order, the plaintiff started the transportation of foodgralns on 31.5.1993. The plaintiff took a load of 130 bags common rice containing 119.41 quintals on 31.5.19...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Chandra Dey Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order No. D. O. 477 dated 24.2.1990 passed by the respondent No. 3, the Commandant, Homeguard Orgasnisation, Government of Tripura discharging the petitioner from service under the Homeguard Organisation and also sought for appropriate writ commanding the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in service with all incidental service benefits aid also to regularise the petitioner's service as constable from 13.11.1965.2. I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chakrabarty for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents.3. Precisely, the petitioner's case is as follows : The petitioner entered in the public service on 13.11.1965 as a member of the Tripura Homeguard Organisation (THG). Though the said Organisation was constituted under Bombay Homeguards. Act, 1947 as adopted in Tripura, but at no point of time, the petitioner has been engaged as a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sailendra Kumar Dey Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
B.B. Deb, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.6.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, WestTripura, Agartala being first appellate court in Title Appeal No. 39 of 1994, corrected judgment dated 31.8.1994 allowing the appeal and settling aside the trial court judgment and decree dated 11.5.1984 (decree dated 21.5.1984) passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit No. 13 of 1981.2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff-appellant's (hereinafter called the 'Plaintiff) case is as follows :The plaintiff entered into public service under the Union of India on 26.8.1968 as an SSB personnel under the SSB Area Organiser, Tripura. While the plaintiff has been serving as such, he was put under suspension vide order dated 6.12.1977 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The back ground leading to suspension was that on 19.11.1977, the plaintiff while was performing Gentry Duty at Coy. HQ. At Baikhora the Commander Shri D...
Tag this Judgment!Raj BamIn Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
P.C. Phukan, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P.K. Mushahar, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. 2. I have also considered the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 and the related documents as well as the writ petition and the annexures thereto, and the records of the proceedings of the DPC held on 3.2,2000 produced b the learned Government Advocate. 3. The petitioner Shri Raj Bamin was appointed as LD Clerk under the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro on 24.4.1985 and thereafter his services were regularised in the year 1996. In the year 1990, the petitioner alleges, 'some other LDCs were promoted to the post of UD Clerk (UDCs) but the case of the petitioner was not considered. He was informed that due to adverse remarks in the ACRs for the year 1988-90 he was not found fit for promotion. On his request the adverse remarks were communicated to him in the year 1991. The representation subm...
Tag this Judgment!State of Assam Vs. Tumba Saw and Veneer Mills, Tumpa, Arunachal Prades ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
A.H. Saikia, J. 1. The instant batch of appeals raises a common question of law and arguments have also addressed on that footing Consequently these appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. An Ordinance under the name of the Assam Forest Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1994 (The Assam Ordinance No. XI of 1994) was promulgated by the Governor of Assam to amend the Assam Forest Regulations, 1891 (for short Regulation) and the same was published on 23rd November, 1994 and it came into force immediately from the date of publication. The said ordinance redefined the definition of Timber' as originally envisaged under Sub-clause 3 of Section 3 of the Regulation. 3. The definition of Timber' was defined under the Regulation prior to amendment as under : ' Timber': includes trees when they have fallen or have been felled, and all woods, whether cut up or fashioned or hollowed out for the purpose or not'. But by the said Ordinance the definition of Timber' was re-defined as ...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Singh Vs. Meghalaya State Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. The instant writ application has been filed seeking interference of this Court with the order of promotion dated 22.8.2000 by which order the respondent No. 3 has been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Meghalaya State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as Me. S.E.B.). 2. The details of the factual matrix on which the instant writ petition has been founded do not qualify for an elaborate recital in view of the virtually undisputed position that in the feeder post, namley the post of Executive Engineer, the writ petitioner was senior to respondent No. 3 by as many as 12 years. The said undisputed position on facts is borne out by the uncontroverted averments made in the writ petition which would go to show that the writ petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer under Me. SEB on 9.7.1984 whereas the respondent No. 3 was so promoted on 1.6.1996. 3. The pleadings of the writ petitioner in support of the challenge made has undergone trans...
Tag this Judgment!Pradip Kumar Kalita Vs. Smt. Hiran Prova Kalita
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
R.S. Mongia, C.J. 1. For computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal, whether the same starts from the date of Judgment or the date of the decree appealed against is the question that is required to be answered by the Full Bench. 2. The aforesaid question has arisen under the following circumstances. The appellant Sri Pradip Kumar Kalita (Husband) had filed a suit for divorce against the respondent Smt. Hiran Prova Kalita (Wife) in the Court of the District Judge, Nalbari. However, the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 9-1 -95. It may be observed here that the appellant had applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 13-3-95 which was ready for delivery on 1-4-95. The decree had been signed by the trial Court (District Judge, Nalbari) on 4-4-95. From the records we find that application for getting certified copy of the decree was made on 28-2-96 and the same was ready for delivery on 4-3-96. The husband filed the First Appeal No. 24/96 in this Court on 24-4-9...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Dev and ors. Vs. Md. Sfiqur Rahman Laskar
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
P.C. Phukan, J. 1. This is an application under Section 115 C.P.C. directed against the judgment and order dated 12.4.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hailakandi in T.A. No. 9/98 dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.5.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division No. 1), Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 39 of 1996 decreeing the above suit for eviction of the petitioners from the suit house premises.2. I have heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party. I have also considered the records of the case.3. The plaintiff's case in brief is that he along with his brother is owner of the suit house which was devided into four equal rooms. The defendants took lease on 1.3.1971 two rooms of the suit house on monthly rent. Lastly on 1.1.1991 new settlements was executed in between the parties for another five years up-to 31.12.1995 and rent was enhanced to...
Tag this Judgment!Tufanialonga Tea Company Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Tripura and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Jan-18-2002
A.K. Patnaik, J. A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner No 1-Company and, the petitioner No 2-Company in CM Application No 6/2001 are owners of Tufanialonga Tea Estate and Laxmilonga Tea Estate located at Teberia, Tripura West. On 13.11.1986, Tripura Tea Companies (Taking Over of Management of Certain Tea Units) Ordinance, 1986, was promulgated by the Government of Tripura and the management of the said two Tea Estates besides other Tea Estates was taken over under the said Ordinance for a period of 5 years. The Ordinance was substituted by an Act. A certificate proceeding was initiated against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for non-payment of land revenue and the Tea Estates of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were sold on 4.6.1987 at a token price ofRe. 1 and the sale was confirmed on 27.7.1987. The two petitioner companies challenged the Ordinance and the Act and the sales of the Tea Estates in the certificate proceeding in Civil Rule No 67/94. By Judgment dated 9.4.1999, a Division Bench of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »